-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?
- Thread starter Burgey
- Start date
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I believe this is the point where we are supposed to say 'wat'
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Pietersen's last ten Tests
There are 11 matches on there, but that includes the Antigue abandonment where he never got to bat. As you can see, in this period he actually averages slightly above his overall career average. Next.
There are 11 matches on there, but that includes the Antigue abandonment where he never got to bat. As you can see, in this period he actually averages slightly above his overall career average. Next.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Your solitary brain cell must get awfully lonely.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Why not?. What does McDonald offer that Nannes or Hilfenhaus could not offer in Sydney & Bollinger or Nannes in South Africa?. Come on mann..
Firstly they where not better balanced in SA. The same mistakes was made again by the selectors, only KEY difference was the Johnson/Siddle/Hilfy stepped up superbly & unexpectedly, thus the stupidy of picking McDonald was masked. I have already clealry explained this.
If they ever play McDonald again & oppostion gets on top of the 3 main quicks (probably Lee/Siddle/Johnson) at any stage of a match. The bowling attack will be seriously exposed.
McDonald didn't embarass himself yes, but his selection doesn't strengthen the bowling - it weakens it. Plus with his batting not being test match quality, it affects the balance of the team. He has no use being in the AUS team.
No it shows that Victoria & the standard of AUS domestic cricket, when it was clear in the glory days, that AUS could field a second XI of high test quality. Is clearly not the case anymore.
Victoria team at its peak, in the early teams. Look at this team that played in the 2002/03 Ashes summer:
Anberger
Mott
Elliot
Hodge
D Hussey
Moss
White
Berry
Harwood
Lewis
Inness
Add the fact that Warne would play sometimes. McDonald couldn't make this team.
What McDonald has shown at internatioal level, which is what matters. James Hopes could have done a similar job.
Haa, what am i hearing now. "Love that have"
Only country McDonald could legitmately play for right now is WI & NZ, but even then he wont be a fixture.
Outside Rogers & O'Brein, Rogers who probably could have a decent shot as a test opener for a few sides. While O'Brein is a solid seravant for NZ ATM.
The rest had or are having poor test careers. Div 2 over is garbage. For selection in the ENG team, unless a you have a situation where a proven test player i.e Flintoff goes back to his county after national duty & finds his county relegated. I won't any player who is stuck in DIV 2 playing England at all, strictly DIV 1.
Yea Hughes got a easy introduction in English conditions, after conquering the Saffies. As we say in the warm-up just concluded, Harmo woke him up back & has to bring back his A-game for wednesday or it could be trouble. (Although i'm backing him to handle it)
Secondly i was never championing the the domestic competition for a long time. I am very critical of it ATM, the solid organisation & structure masked the poor quality of cricket in DIV 2 sometimes.
Prime examples being. The fact that Alastiar Cook could score a T20 Hundred in 50 odd balls & Kaneria could keep spinning out batsmen for Essex & yet look very average @ test level for years now.
Yea, but i am not asking you for a hypotetical assesment since the attack would change no doubt.
But say AUS tour SA in 09/10 and they take Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, McDonald as the bowlers again, & they pick McDonald as part of a 4-man attack. What happened in Capetown, Perth & MCG will be trend of that series.
Well clearly i haven't done that. I made this assesment based on what i saw of his bowling in the 4 test & as you have read i have given solid reasons why his selection was luck & the selectors SHOULD have chosen other personel. So far you or no-one have discredited anything i have said.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Right, Hilfy stepped up superbly did he!? You're ignoring the difference that was McDonald keeping things tight whereas in the first two tests in Aus we didn't have bowlers who were filling that role. In the third test in SA McDonald didn't do his job and McGain went for a thousand as well.
If you play a match and any three bowlers out of an attack are conquered by the opposition the other bowler won't be able to carry the attack on their own - see Warne in England '05. You need the bowlers to work together as a unit.
You seem to love speculating about what other players 'could' have done. I don't have any great faith in James Hopes coming into tests and performing better. Sure, it's possible Nannes or Bollinger might have outperformed McDonald. They also might have gone for quite a few and got no wickets. It's all speculation really. Downplaying what McDonald did to boost the claims of guys who aren't proven at international level doesn't really prove anything.
So you're not asking me for a hypothetical...but you're prepared to say that if McDonald was in the team he'd play exactly as he did in Capetown and we'd lose. Interesting. I guess you'll defend that by saying it's not strictly a hypothetical and that you KNOW that'll happen. Then if it doesn't you'll tell us it's because the selectors got lucky again and McDonald benefitted from the 3 other bowlers being present, Merv Hughes leading a touring party of spectators there, and the fact that they were selling hot dogs at the ground on the day - which happens to be McDonald's favourite food.
Oh, and so far you haven't discredited anything I've said...'LALALALALALALALA'. No offense mate, but with some of the stuff you've come out with there's no need for any effort on my part.
Last edited:
Andre
International Regular
Just out of interest, what does the Victorian side in 2002/03 have to do with the Australian Test side now? Fair point if every member of the side was born on the same day or developed at exactly the same rate, but suggesting that a 20-year-old in 2002/03 shouldn't make a Test side as a 27-year-old in 2009 because he missed out on the Victorian side 7 years ago is bizarre logic, I don't really get the relevance of the point when discussing 2009.
If I remember correctly, anyway, McDonald had a shoulder reconstruction that season anyway.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Yes he did. He wasn't a fantastic as Johnson & Siddle, but utilised the new ball well enough & was never erratic.
As i said before just like how Lee in Ashes 05, Hilfenhaus bowled better than his figures suggested.
McDonald keeping it tight is his strenght, thats clear. But its not a McGrath/Ambrose wicket-taking tight.
In every match in SA as i've gone through before. McDonald basically fed off was allowed to be economical because of superb the pace trio where. SA where never in a dominant enough batting position until the Capetown to take advantage of him "the obvious weak-link" in the bowling attack. He never posed a wicket-taking threat, AUS where better off picking another fast-bowler in SA. I dont see why this is not clear.
Its not that he didn't do his job. As i just said, SA where never in a position to dominate him until that capetown test.
McGain most likely would have been smashed anyway if he played earlier TBH. Before the series it was clear AUS didn't need a spinner to SA. Past tours in 02 & 2006 should have made that clear, but these stupid selectors keep doing crap.
Yes. But McDonald offered nothing in the unit.
Look at the 2001 Ashe. Lee was utter garbage, all the work was done by Pigeon, Dizzy & hollywood. So its clear 3 bowlers once they get on top a batting side, can dominate a batting line-ups & the 4th bowler weakness can be masked.
He would based on what i've seen of them. The same sort of role he did with the ball Hopes does in ODIs really. Plus Hopes clearly is a better batsman. But even Hopes would be an obvious poor selection.
McDonald was selected because of AUS continous stupid obsession of having an all-rounder. Just pick 6 batsmen & 4 quicks FFS, in a decade of watching cricket i have never seen the selectors so hard-headed.
Come on mayn, stop fighting yourself. Its pretty clear that playing those those in the last 4test instead of McDonald would have made the attack stronger. Its not rocket science.
Especially Nannes. Given that i dont get to see AUS domestic cricket, i'm shocked none of you guys weren't really calling for him to be picked since the SCG test TBH. Given the swing Johnson found in SA especially, Nannes being a natural @ it, damnnnn
I ain't downplaying it. I am have gone through ever test match innings bowling performance & i have come to very solid conclusion that McDonald offers/offered the bowling attack nothing in SA.
While in Sydney although he gave the selectors the a 5-man attack of variety, that they have been seeking in this post McWarne era, it severly weakened the batting.
Thankfully though the batting outside Hayden & Hussey (to a degree) was never under Ashes 2005 pressure. So a combination of continous solid batting & a balanced attacked enabled a win in SA, thus McDonald useless position in Sydney was again masked.
Well of course, SA clearly in a hypothetical 09/10 series will know what to expect from Johnson & Siddle especially. If they conquer it though is another question.
Johnson surprised everyone with his ability to swing the ball in SA, everyone was expecting him to be a hit the deck bowler in AUS.
Siddle surprised them with the bounce a sem movement he got in SA. On the flat AUS pitches he wasn't getting that.
Hilfenhaus although he was dangerous enough, SA still handled him well. In a hypothetical scenario depending on how Hilfenhaus improves in years time. SA may look to attack him more, if he has the new ball.
Oh yea, im willing to bet alot based on what i've seen of him in all the spells he bowled in the last 4 test. That in a hypothetical 09/10 series, if AUS take the same attack to SA - McDonald will be exposed again.
Clearly i haven't been arguing on the basis of no ideological gridlock towards McDonald.
The main point i can gather than you & the others have based your defense on McDonald is that he has been ecomical.
So far i have given clear reason in all 4 test why he was not economical bowling was masked by the effective of the 3 seamers in SA & why he clearly made the balance of the team in Sydney very poor.
Also why his selection in Ashes squad makes absolutely no sense.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
My point in bringing up that Victorian side was to show to emphazie my point. That the standard of AUS domestic cricket during the glory days, when AUS could field a second XI of high quality test standard is no longer the case.
This is shown by that Victoria team in 2002/03, if that was the team right now. McDonald in his current domestic form couldn't make be a fxture as he is. But would be on the fringes still.
Well, Brett Lee won't be selected for the first two tests, that's for sure.
Despite his dodgy record in England, I am disappointed by that. It is true that he hasn't really been penetrative with the new ball, but he did bowl very well when it reversed. It is also a shame to see him work so hard to come back and then have to sit out again. However, as Peter Roebuck said, his age was always going to make a long-term comeback problematic, especially with his pretty poor (albeit not the worst) injury record.
This'll probably lead the selectors to utilise the same attack that was present in South Africa. They may include Nathan Hauritz for the sake of variety, but this would be a mistake, IMO. For instance, Ashley Giles (who could, despite having a poor record, actually be effective on turners) was played far too often.
I'm not sure whether this is a good or bad thing. While I was supporting an attack of Johnson/Siddle/Clark/Hauritz or Johnson/Siddle/Hilfenhaus/Clark, some of those bowlers have looked rusty, to say the least. Ironic, really.
Despite his dodgy record in England, I am disappointed by that. It is true that he hasn't really been penetrative with the new ball, but he did bowl very well when it reversed. It is also a shame to see him work so hard to come back and then have to sit out again. However, as Peter Roebuck said, his age was always going to make a long-term comeback problematic, especially with his pretty poor (albeit not the worst) injury record.
This'll probably lead the selectors to utilise the same attack that was present in South Africa. They may include Nathan Hauritz for the sake of variety, but this would be a mistake, IMO. For instance, Ashley Giles (who could, despite having a poor record, actually be effective on turners) was played far too often.
I'm not sure whether this is a good or bad thing. While I was supporting an attack of Johnson/Siddle/Clark/Hauritz or Johnson/Siddle/Hilfenhaus/Clark, some of those bowlers have looked rusty, to say the least. Ironic, really.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Agreed
He's had a couple of serious ankle problems but has generally been fitter than most
He's had serious injuries in 2000/01, 2003/04, 2006/07 and 2008/09, with a few more minor ones in between. Stress fractures have also rendered him almost immobile at times (although they are endemic amongst quicks).
His aging body doesn't help, either.
pasag
RTDAS
Haha, love it.